Judgment No. 3290
Decision
1. The Director-General’s decision of 15 August 2011, and the Regional Director’s decision of 3 November 2009 to the extent that it relates to the complainant’s separation from service, are set aside.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant damages in the amount of 30,000 United States dollars.
3. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 6,000 dollars.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; delay; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; grade; fixed-term; abolition of post; reassignment; termination of employment
Consideration 14
Extract:
"As to the adequacy of the notification to the complainant of the decision to abolish his post in Judgment 3041, under 8, the Tribunal held that an organisation must give proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. While it is true that the letter did not expressly state that the decision was a final decision, it clearly communicated that a final decision had been taken to abolish the complainant’s post with immediate effect. The fact that the complainant remained in the post during the reassignment process is a matter of the implementation of the decision and does not detract from the finality of the
decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords
decision; post held by the complainant; abolition of post; reassignment; definition
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords
advisory body; report; competence of tribunal; reassignment; judicial review; decision-maker
Consideration 30
Extract:
"[W]ith respect to the reassignment process itself, as part of its obligation to make reasonable efforts to find a suitable post for the complainant, [the organisation] ought to have enquired whether the complainant was willing to accept a post at a lower grade than the one he held (see Judgment 2830, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2830
Keywords
organisation's duties; grade; post held by the complainant; reassignment
Consideration 35
Extract:
[A]s the Director-General’s decision [...] confirming the termination of the complainant’s appointment was based on relevant evidence not disclosed to the complainant as was the Regional Director’s earlier decision [...], they must be set aside, the latter to the extent that it relates to the complainant’s separation from service. In view of the passage of time, reinstatement is not a viable option. However, the complainant is entitled to an award of damages [...].
Keywords
reinstatement; separation from service; material damages
Consideration 21
Extract:
As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264 [...]:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality [citation omitted]” (Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; due process
| 
